LIMITACIONES DE EJECUCIÓN

Tables 1–5 present the results of an analysis of YCS data using the complex samples procedure within the Statistics Package for Social Scientists. The YCS variable names are presented in each table. Where locations of post-16 education are given, ‘FE’ refers to FE and tertiary colleges.

Participation of 16–17 year olds in education and training declines markedly with social class position, with a commensurate increase in those in government-supported training, those in employment without training, or those not in employment, education or training. Young people in the lowest social classes are considerably less likely to be in full-time education than those in the two highest classes. Employment with train- ing, which would often lead to part-time attendance in FE, is rare for all social classes. This pattern can be seen in Table 1.

Table 2 presents the distribution by social class of 16–17 year olds in full-time education across different locations in post-16 education. Those from the highest social classes are considerably more likely to remain at school for post-16 education than those from other classes; this may be due in part to a greater likelihood for schools serving the higher classes to have sixth forms. The increased likelihood of attendance at an FE college with decreasing social class is also apparent from the table, although the increase is not as marked as may be expected and there is a signif- icant representation in FE for all classes.

One obvious explanation for the increased likelihood of being in FE for lower social classes is that these young people may not have the educational qualifications necessary to pursue higher status courses in other institutions, and therefore seek vocational or other courses in FE – an example of the ‘closed doors’ of Ball, Macrae, and Maguire (1999). It is therefore important to analyse further the data of Table 2 by taking into account differences in educational achievement on leaving school. This is done in Table 3 by breaking down each cell of the previous table into two groups: those with five or more GCSE passes at grade A*–C and those with fewer than five passes at grade A*–C, respectively. In England, this is a common criterion for selecting those suited for academic or higher vocational study post-16.

Table 1. Participation of young people aged 16–17 years in education and training (s1ed_tr1) by household socio-economic class (famsec).

Education and training (%)

Full-time education Employed with training Employed without training Government -supported training Other education or training Not in employment, education or training Total count

Large employers and higher professionals

87.2 2.0 3.3 4.5 1.2 1.8 2608

Lower professional and higher technical 78.1 2.6 5.9 7.0 1.6 4.9 4423 Intermediate 68.6 2.6 10.1 9.7 2.0 7.1 3609 Lower supervisory occupations 58.0 5.3 14.4 12.2 2.2 7.9 1875 Semi-routine and routine occupations 58.7 2.6 13.4 12.4 1.5 11.3 2400

British Journal of Sociology of Education 35

A number of trends are apparent from Table 3. For the higher achievers, atten- dance in FE remains much more likely for those from lower social classes – twice as likely when comparing the lowest three classes with the highest. On the other hand, attendance in a sixth-form college is almost equally likely across all social classes, reflecting the greater propensity for high-achieving students from the high- est classes to remain in school. It would appear that high achievers from higher social classes actively reject the FE system. Table 3 also shows that high achievers from lower social classes are more likely to be not in full-time education than other high achievers.

Turning now to lower achievers, Table 3 indicates that the likelihood of low- achieving students from higher social classes attending FE is considerably greater than for these classes as a whole. As with other low achievers, they meet the ‘closed doors’ of a selective school and sixth-form college system; for many, this appears to lead to a complete exit from full-time education. However, departure from education is less likely for these students than for low achievers from lower classes.

Table 4 presents the levels of courses attended, again by social class. Note that, in England and Wales, ‘Level 3’ refers to academic awards such as General Certificate in Education Advanced Level (A-level), and also to vocationally related courses such as Advanced Vocational Certificate of Education or Advanced General National Vocational Qualifications; these awards may be used to gain entry to higher educa- tion. Awards at ‘Level 2’ are broadly equivalent to GCSE grades A*–C and ‘Level 1’ corresponds to GCSE grades D–G.

The data from Tables 1 and 2 make it possible to determine the composition, by social class, of 16–17 year olds in full-time education within FE. This is shown, also broken down by gender, in Table 5.

Table 5 shows that the social composition of FE is not dissimilar to the distribution of social backgrounds of 16–17 year olds as a whole, although those from the highest

Table 2. Locations of young people aged 16–17 years in full-time education and training (Inst

type for s1act1FTED) by household socio-economic class (famsec).

Education and training (%) State school Independent school Sixth-form college FE college Other/not stated Not in full-time education Large employers and

higher professionals

40.1 15.0 13.8 14.5 3.8 12.8 Lower professional

and higher technical

35.2 5.1 14.1 20.1 3.5 21.9 Intermediate 27.8 4.5 10.5 21.7 4.2 31.4 Lower supervisory occupations 21.0 0.9 9.1 22.6 4.4 42.0 Semi-routine and routine occupations 19.2 0.5 9.8 24.6 4.6 41.3 Other 19.1 1.7 11.3 24.7 5.0 38.2

36 R. Thompson

Table 3. Locations of young people aged 16–17 years in full-time education and training by household socio-economic class (famsec) and attainment (s1peta2).

Education and training (%) State school Independent school Sixth-form college FE college Other/not stated Not in full-time education Total count Large employers and

higher professionals

<5 A*–C grades 15.1 4.0 3.6 29.1 9.3 38.9 594 5+ A*–C grades 47.4 18.2 16.8 10.2 2.2 5.1 2014 Lower professional

and higher technical

<5 A*–C grades 15.2 1.5 6.3 28.2 3.9 44.8 1596 5+ A*–C grades 46.5 7.1 18.6 15.5 3.3 9.0 2827 Intermediate <5 A*–C grades 12.7 0.8 6.0 26.1 4.5 49.9 1756 5+ A*–C grades 42.1 8.0 14.7 17.4 3.8 14.0 2853 Lower supervisory occupations <5 A*–C grades 12.0 0.3 5.9 23.0 5.2 53.6 1232 5+ A*–C grades 38.1 2.1 15.2 21.8 2.9 19.8 643 Semi-routine and routine occupations <5 A*–C grades 12.1 0.1 5.5 26.2 5.1 51.0 1660 5+ A*–C grades 35.1 1.5 19.5 21.1 3.4 19.5 740 Other <5 A*–C grades 12.9 0.1 8.0 26.5 5.5 47.0 1331 5+ A*–C grades 37.0 6.5 20.7 19.6 3.5 12.7 462

Table 4. Main study aim (s1saim2) of young people aged 16–17 years in full-time education in FE colleges, by household socio-economic class.

Main study aim by level (count, row% in brackets) Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Other course/ not applicable Large employers and higher

professionals

237 (62.5) 76 (20.1) 23 (6.1) 43 (11.3) Lower professional and higher

technical

460 (51.7) 233 (26.2) 81 (9.1) 115 (12.9) Intermediate 334 (42.7) 222 (28.4) 97 (12.4) 130 (16.6) Lower supervisory occupations 154 (36.3) 133 (31.4) 68 (16.0) 69 (16.3) Semi-routine and routine

occupations

167 (28.2) 182 (30.7) 93 (15.7) 150 (25.3) Other 107 (24.2) 140 (31.7) 76 (17.2) 119 (26.9)

British Journal of Sociology of Education 37

5. Discussion

This section attempts to give a reading of the data presented earlier that is consistent with the emphasis given to class by Avis and by Reay, yet acknowledges the complex- ity of the individual life choices made by young people. This reading will draw on the work of Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1990, 2006; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Reay 2004), as well as recent work on the sociology of middle-class education by Power et al. (2003), Power and Whitty (2006) and Whitty (2001).

Initially, the data in the previous section need to be seen in the context of the conceptual basis of the classification system used, which in the case of the NS-SEC is that ‘employment relations and conditions are central to delineating the structure of socio-economic positions in modern societies’ (Rose, Pevalin, and O’Reilly 2005, 14). Specifically, this is developed in terms of a distinction between employments based on a ‘service relationship’ characterized by autonomy, security and authority and those based on a ‘labour contract’ characterized by close supervision, control and conflict relations. Intermediate employment relationships are those containing elements of both these types to a greater or lesser degree.

Using Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, it may be suggested that a family habitus will emerge that is influenced strongly, not only by material and social conditions but also specifically by the employment relationships characteristic of family members. As a ‘practice-generating grammar’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, 35), this habitus struc- tures the repertoire of behaviours of family members. The idea of a ‘grammar’ illustrates one way in which agency and reproduction are reconciled; many possible sentences may be consistent with the grammar, but not all sentences are possible. As Reay (2004, 435) notes, ‘Choice is at the heart of habitus …, but at the same time the choices inscribed in the habitus are limiting’. Elements of this primary habitus may go with or against the grain of the secondary habitus of schooling. This would further suggest that a family

Table 5. Young people aged 16–17 years in full-time education in an FE college by household socio-economic class and gender (data derived from Inst type for s1act1FTED by famsec and

s1sex).

16–17 year olds in full-time education in FE (%) Male Female Total

Proportion of total population of 16–17 year olds (%) Large employers and higher

professionals

5.5 5.3 10.8 15.6 Lower professional and higher

technical

12.0 13.3 25.3 26.5 Intermediate 8.8 13.6 22.3 21.6 Lower supervisory occupations 5.4 6.7 12.1 11.2 Semi-routine and routine

occupations

7.6 9.2 16.8 14.4 Other 6.2 6.5 12.6 10.7 Total 45.5 54.5 100.0 100.0

38 R. Thompson

young people from higher class backgrounds compared with those from class back- grounds characterized by labour contract employment relations. It is reasonable to expect post-16 aspirations to be part of the matrix of dispositions contained in the habi- tus; for example, as seen in the study by Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) of a northern sixth-form college and in the work of Archer, Halsall, and Hollingworth (2007) on the aspirations of working-class girls.

The broad shape of the analysis of the previous section, with increasing levels of participation with increasing class position, and a greater concentration in less presti- gious institutions or outside education with decreasing class position, is therefore consistent with a conceptualization based on Bourdieu. However, a more detailed understanding may be achieved by recognizing, with Whitty (2001) and Power et al. (2003), that the place of middle-class young people is crucial to an analysis of the education of young people as a whole.

Whitty (2001) takes up the arguments of Giddens (1998) concerning patterns of social exclusion from public services in general, and applies them to education. He emphasizes that exclusion takes place ‘at the top’ as well as ‘at the bottom’, in that middle-class parents tend to self-exclude their children from general types or particu- lar locations of state provision that they deem to be ‘unsafe’ in academic or social terms. The effects of middle-class self-exclusion on less desired types of schooling are profound, undermining the status of certain schools and preventing institutions from achieving the ‘critical mass’ required for the development of an academic ethos. Middle-class absence also manifests itself by depriving unfavoured institutions of cultural, social and material capital. There is, however, a delicate balance between self-exclusion, which may leave working-class children in one institution without the benefits conferred by the presence of middle-class peers, and middle-class coloniza- tion, which may largely preclude working-class access to some institutions.

The extent of middle-class self-exclusion from FE colleges can be seen by comparing Tables 2, 3 and 5. Although from Table 5 FE appears to be a space for the interaction of young people from all social classes, middle-class young people are much less likely to attend FE than their working-class peers (14.5% of young people from large employer/higher professional backgrounds compared with 24.6% from backgrounds with parents in semi-routine or routine occupations). The reason why so many middle-class young people (in numerical terms) may be found in further educa- tion colleges is, firstly, that their general participation rate in post-compulsory educa- tion is high and, secondly, that the middle class itself is now much larger than in the mid-twentieth century. The apparent egalitarianism of FE seen in Table 5 is therefore something of an illusion.

The further analysis provided by Table 3 sharpens this point. When previous academic achievement is taken into account, middle-class self-exclusion of high- achieving young people operates even more strongly. Only 10.2% of higher achievers from large employer/higher professional backgrounds attend FE; working-class young people with similar achievement are twice as likely to be in FE. Middle-class self- exclusion from further education colleges is therefore exclusion (in proportional terms) of high achievers; Table 3 shows that low achievers from middle-class back- grounds are actually more likely to attend FE than low achievers from the working class. For low-achieving, working-class young people, academic failure is likely to propel them out of education altogether, whereas this effect is less pronounced for middle-class low achievers. In Bourdieu’s terms (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, 72),

British Journal of Sociology of Education 39

selected for post-16 participation, and therefore effectively a much greater part of the distribution of linguistic and other capital is represented than for the working class. It may be argued, then, that to a significant extent FE college provision for young people is constructed from middle-class failure; their role as second chance institutions is often for middle-class young people, for whom they present an opportunity to climb back on the ladder of progression to further or higher education.

These observations provide support for the conclusions of Power et al. (2003) and Power and Whitty (2006) – that the supposed ‘inevitability of middle-class success’ is highly questionable, and that even successful middle-class educational outcomes often follow some form of ‘troubled’ or ‘broken’ progression. However, because of the construction of the sample of young people studied by Power et al. (their work was originally based on research into the assisted places scheme), the number of low- achieving (fewer than five GCSE grades A*–C) students available to them was limited to 12. The larger sample of low achievers considered here both emphasizes that middle-class success is certainly not inevitable and also highlights the role of FE as a recourse of low-achieving middle-class students. Bathmaker’s (2005) ‘hangers-in’ (students with a tenuous but continuing foothold on the academic ladder in FE) are by no means exclusively working class. There is also evidence here for the inhomogene- ity of the middle class as argued by Power and Whitty (2006), with the ‘middle-class gradient’ of participation and study aim evident in the tables indicating vertical differ- entiation, although horizontal differentiation is not discernible given the class catego- ries used in the YCS data.

Is there evidence that the presence of significant numbers of middle-class school leavers represents a form of ‘colonization’ of FE, possibly beginning to exclude work- ing-class young people within the sector? Table 4 indicates that this may be the case in terms of Level 3 courses, where even in FE the higher social classes (professional and intermediate) are numerically dominant. Colley et al. (2003) provide a vivid example of how this might operate in specific cases, describing exclusionary processes operating within a broadly working-class group of female students, which nevertheless was stratified in terms of parental occupation. ‘Nice’ students:

lived in leafier suburbs … usually with both parents, [who were in] more white-collar occupations. ‘Rough’ students lived in the more deprived areas … in poorer and less stable family situations, and were criticised for using obscene language, bullying others and dressing in exotic fashions … a number of these students became isolated and then excluded from the learning site in various ways. (Colley et al. 2003, 482)

As noted above, the creation of parts of the FE system as a ‘safe space’ for lower- achieving middle-class young people may confer benefits in terms of a contribution of cultural and social capital; however, processes such as that Colley et al. describe could result in the marginalization of some working-class students within the broader FE system.

Turning now to higher achievers, why should working-class students with ‘good’ GCSEs be twice as likely to find themselves in an FE college as middle-class students of similar achievement? One obvious explanation is that state schools in working-class areas are less likely than those in middle-class areas to have sixth forms, so that for many working-class young people a change of learning site is inevitable. Nevertheless,

40 R. Thompson

challenges’ (Bourdieu 1990, 60). The ‘institutional blindness’ discussed by Baker and Brown (2007) in relation to higher education choice, through which the separation for working-class applicants is between participation or not rather than between institu- tions of different status, may also be operating. Furthermore, the work of Archer, Halsall, and Hollingworth (2007) on the educational engagement of working-class girls suggests that post-16 aspirations will require a gendered as well as class-based analysis, with even apparently trivial concerns such as dress code having a potential influence.

A further insight into the social stratification of inclusion may be provided by the concept of field. Field, as a social environment containing the struggle between competing social groups, constitutes each group in terms of its location within the field and of its relationships with other groups. The way in which the field is struc- tured depends on the exercise of power by dominant groups; for example, in the field of age 14–19 education in England and Wales, ‘success’ is defined as the achievement of GCSE grades sufficient in number and quality to allow progression to the dominant academic curricula leading to higher education entry. According to Bernstein (2000, xxii), the essence of Bourdieu’s ‘symbolic violence’ in structuring the field of educa- tion lies in how the school ‘disguises and masks the way power relations, external to the school, produce the hierarchies of knowledge, possibility and value within the school’, thereby legitimizing educational inequalities between different social groups as arising from individualized, meritocratic principles. This is an example of what Bernstein (2000, xxiii) calls a ‘mythological discourse’ whose function is to maintain horizontal solidarities between different groups and thus to contain vertical cleavages, such as differential achievement according to social class. Arguably, the system of post-compulsory education in England and Wales is beset by an exclusionary discourse that functions so as to retain the grip of higher social classes on the ‘glitter- ing prizes’ of elite higher education entry and employment in an environment of widening participation and increasing access to credentials. In order to retain class advantage, it has become necessary to supplement credentials with the location of their achievement. Thus we find in league tables for schools, colleges and universities information on which are the ‘top’ institutions for higher education entry, for higher education success and for elite employment. In terms of qualifications themselves, the ‘gold standard’ of A-level is fiercely defended along with the academic/vocational status divide, and means are sought to identify ‘the best’ candidates through grading systems of increasing complexity. At the same time, the effects of this exclusionary discourse are contained by a corresponding mythological discourse that ascribes the resulting vertical differentiation to the intrinsic merit of qualifications, institutions and the individuals who attend them. In this context, the perception of FE by the middle class as a last resort for its own children can only undermine efforts to use the sector as a vehicle for social inclusion.

Two possible limitations on the conclusions to be drawn from this analysis should be noted. Firstly, the analysis does not take into account the effect of variations in the class composition of different regions in England and Wales, so that in certain areas there may be marked differences between the overall distributions presented here and the local distribution. Regionalizing the analysis would have been possible, but would